Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

A forum for informal conversation and friendly repartee. Please join us at the fire, introduce yourself and receive a hearty welcome! :grin:
Forum rules
Welcome to The Hearthfire! This is a public forum, viewable by guests as well as members, and is cataloged by most search engines. Host: Heddwen
Note: this forum is set to auto prune after a thread has not had a post or been viewed for 60 days.
User avatar
treegod
OBOD Druid
Posts: 2627
Joined: 26 Apr 2007, 16:28
Gender: Male
Location: Catalonia, Spain
Contact:

Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby treegod » 24 Jun 2017, 23:03

https://druidintraining.wordpress.com/2 ... -monarchy/
I’m a republican by default: give me a referendum choice between republic and monarchy, and I’d vote republic – but only if I found its form acceptable and was convinced that it would improve things in society. Perhaps I’m most sceptical on this point, just because an elected head of state seems more “reasonable” than a hereditary one, doesn’t mean things will get magically better. Is a republic more just, democratic, equitable and less corrupt than a monarchy? Not necessarily, the difference may just be symbolic.

In a democracy a hereditary monarch looks out of place; we’re meant to choose our leaders, not inherit them from the mists of the past. On the other hand, if the people show clear signs that they want a monarchy, then that is also democratic (each time you vote for a monarchy-supporting party or candidate, you are indirectly voting for the monarchy). It can be an important part of some people’s cultural and historical identity – just not mine.

You cannot impose values on a society for which it is not ready, even values which are beneficial, because if that society doesn’t like or understand the new values, they will be rejected, like germs in a body. That is why gradual reform is better than abrupt revolution – the results stick better. Any change from monarchy to republic should be legal, constitutional and, above all, democratic. There are plenty of changes to do to the monarchy and its position in society before it can be removed and/or replaced with something else.

I think the more democratic a society becomes, the less need there is for a monarchy, the ritual and symbolism it represents becomes more irrelevant to the real needs of citizens. But we’re not quite “postmodern” enough to do away with the ritual and symbolism that monarchy embodies, which is the natural sovereignty of the people. For many people, the monarchy is a point of stability, an anchor for their society. Take it away and you destabilise a part of their world, which can potentially have horrific political and social consequences. My republicanism isn’t so strong to pursue this.

There perhaps is no “true democracy” in the world today – all such are just “works in progress” – so for the moment we can accept the juxtaposition of monarchy and democracy, whilst we work on what it means to be “democratic” and how to make it work. Only when each citizen becomes their own monarch can an external one be disposed of or simply made redundant. Really, you cannot abolish the external monarchy, just replace it with an internal one that exists within each and every citizen.

So, until next time, slowly and incrementally down with the monarchy! Long live the Kings and Queens that we all are!

User avatar
Heddwen
OBOD Druid
Posts: 2983
Joined: 26 Sep 2007, 16:06
Gender: Female
Location: West Wales
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby Heddwen » 25 Jun 2017, 10:42

Powerful words, treegod. :)

User avatar
malcolmb
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 467
Joined: 21 Jun 2008, 18:49
Gender: Male
Location: Isle of Wight, England
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby malcolmb » 25 Jun 2017, 14:29

Firstly I must wonder if Republic versus Monarchy is a suitable subject for a Druid Forum. Many will be aware that I do not believe that Druids have a role in politics. We are all citizens of our particular country and as such have a full right to express political views, assuming that your country permits it. Expressing those political views in a citizen related forum is your right. But here? I think not.

Secondly, UK is a Constitutional Monarchy. The word "Constitutional" is important. It means that the power of the monarch is restricted by Parliament, the Law and our unwritten constitution. As such the power of the monarch is extremely limited almost to the point of non-existence. Within a Republic, would the power of a President be similarly restricted? I very much doubt it. The primacy of Parliament and thereby the will of the people would be curtailed. While I appreciate there are counter-arguments, I think our current system has much to be applauded.

Thirdly, we have been exceptionally well served by our current Monarch. Her even-handed diplomacy, experience and advice have been valued not only by the many Prime Ministers during her reign but also by many leaders within the Commonwealth and elsewhere. I have no doubt that those who follow her as monarch will equally serve this country with distinction. I have serious reservations as to whether the same would be true of a President with political leanings.

I am an unashamed monarchist. I see no reason to change our current system which serves the country and its people well.
Peaceful Earth Grove: http://www.peacefulearthgrove.com/


My original "Druid Music" CDs (all proceeds to the charity "Pagan Aid":
https://lylemusic.bandcamp.com/

My original Celtic / Folk / Jazz music at:
http://www.soundclick.com/lylemusic
http://www.soundclick.com/malcolmbrown
http://www.youtube.com/user/LyleMusic

“So many Gods, so many creeds, so many paths that wind and wind. While just the art of being kind, is all the sad world needs.” Ella Wheeler Wilcox

User avatar
Michael C. Page
OBOD Druid
Posts: 4409
Joined: 02 Feb 2007, 21:10
Gender: Male
Location: In my dreams I'm Crooning at the Burgh Island Hotel
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby Michael C. Page » 25 Jun 2017, 14:45

Hello treegod, :hiya:

Good to see you posting again. |-) While I do disagree with the over all blog for many reasons, I do understand your frustration. The thing I would really ask you to consider at this point however is this;

Given the state of affairs of the two primary examples of "Republican" ( i.e. elected democratic ) government bodies such as the in USA and the House of Commons in the UK are you sure that you have chosen a correct solution to the problem?

As an American, I see the disadvantages of having ALL elected branches which are ALL dominated by party politics. I think you need a check and balance, not only between Branches and Parties, but between an electorate and appointed Branch as well. The good news is, I think that the UK has, in place already, a good formula for sound government if she would only enact a few reforms.

For example, keep the House of Lords appointed, but forbid any political affiliation (that is the key). As to the House of Commons, depending on what the people wanted, as the elected body most likely (knowing human nature and all that) the Party Politics would stay. Keep in mind you already have the Veto acts of 1911 & 1949 thus assuring the House of Commons has dominance anyway, though this may need to be rethought considering the general incompetence of elected governments over the past 25 years or so.

With some simple reforms, the British people can make sure that you "Save your Politicians from themselves" by making sure that, when one House is insane, the other House can step in and stabilize the situation until the insanity ebbs. :) After all, people want sound Government.....not a bunch of grandstanding ego maniacs chasing wind and stirring up strife.

I'm sure many other reforms would have to be considered of course, but the potential for creating a system of check and balance is there already in the UK. :) It's not in my country (sadly). I do not see the USA changing the Senate both in Washington and varies States to an appointed body.....but if only the Senate was at least......well....Party Free....Oh well. :shrug:

Cheers old son :tiphat:
Michael


Image

"If a man does not keep pace with his companions,
perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.
Let him step to the music he hears,
however measured or far away."
- Thoreau

My harp was sacrificed to the Honorable Snarg.

User avatar
treegod
OBOD Druid
Posts: 2627
Joined: 26 Apr 2007, 16:28
Gender: Male
Location: Catalonia, Spain
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby treegod » 26 Jun 2017, 02:49

Thanks for the responses, it's been interesting to read. If I have a moment on the computer this week, I'll respond more specifically (responding by tablet... too complicated for me).

User avatar
Greybeard
OBOD Druid
Posts: 52
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:14
Gender: Male
Location: The land of the Cantiaci
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby Greybeard » 26 Jun 2017, 07:11

Good blog post!

Malcolmb: Most aspects of life are political and I hope we get more of this type of discussion here. :)

If the pre-Roman Druids served their Kings, should there be a greater role for religion in political life? Personally I'm happy that religion influences politics and society but I want my government to be a representative democracy, including the Upper House in the UK.

That said, I would prefer to have a monarch as a symbolic figure as long as they have no powers at all and just a modest budget. They give Britain identity and generate income through tourism (no, I don't want a royal theme park though... :wink: )

User avatar
malcolmb
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 467
Joined: 21 Jun 2008, 18:49
Gender: Male
Location: Isle of Wight, England
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby malcolmb » 26 Jun 2017, 10:28

Greybeard wrote:Malcolmb: Most aspects of life are political and I hope we get more of this type of discussion here. :)


The problem with "political" is in defining what you means. It's a bit like the word "Druid". All people who follow our belief are Druid. Those outside Teaching Orders may or may not call themselves "Druid" or "A Druid". You are an OBOD Druid. All different; same word!

Leaping for the Oxford English Dictionary, "Political" means "Relating to a Government or public affairs of a country". It also means "Relating to the ideas or strategy of a particular party or group in politics". So "political" covers both Government activity AND party politics. During the recent General Election, I saw "instructions" to the Druid community telling us which political party we must vote for. Rubbish said I. The reasons for my choice of whom I vote for are complex, only in part involve my Druid belief and are no one's business except mine. There is no place for Party Politics in Druidry. Voting in an Election is my personal decision as a citizen, not a Druid.

Decisions made by Government, local authorities, businesses etc. which impact on the environment are clearly Druid issues and logically should be raised here. So in that context, political matters do appear to have a place in Druid forums. The test is "does the issue impact in any way on Druidry as a whole and/or my Druid belief?" This requires judgement and like all personal judgements can be open to debate. Druid Forums are good places for such a debate. So if in doubt, it is reasonable to test the issue in this forum. Does whether we have a Monarch or President in any way impact on Druidry and / or my Druid belief? My answer is No. So in my view, the issue has no place in this Forum.

My personal view is that all political issues should be excluded from Druid Forums. Many seem to be unable to separate national issues from party politics. So if you accept that party politics are not the business of Druidry (and I appreciate that some of you will disagree with me), then it is best to avoid all political issues. I have recently left a major Druid Forum which appeared to me to be increasingly taken over by one particular political stance. They had lost sight of the simple truth that it is the issue which should be challenged, not the political record or party allegiance of the person making Governmental decisions on that issue.

I fully appreciate that I am a 'voice in the wilderness' on the increasing prevalence of party political activity in Druidry. But it does worry me.
Peaceful Earth Grove: http://www.peacefulearthgrove.com/


My original "Druid Music" CDs (all proceeds to the charity "Pagan Aid":
https://lylemusic.bandcamp.com/

My original Celtic / Folk / Jazz music at:
http://www.soundclick.com/lylemusic
http://www.soundclick.com/malcolmbrown
http://www.youtube.com/user/LyleMusic

“So many Gods, so many creeds, so many paths that wind and wind. While just the art of being kind, is all the sad world needs.” Ella Wheeler Wilcox

User avatar
Greybeard
OBOD Druid
Posts: 52
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:14
Gender: Male
Location: The land of the Cantiaci
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby Greybeard » 26 Jun 2017, 19:41

Clearly "party" politics is fraught with difficulty especially as it is as divisive as religion but a discussion about the role monarchy is not a party political issue but a constitutional issue.

User avatar
malcolmb
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 467
Joined: 21 Jun 2008, 18:49
Gender: Male
Location: Isle of Wight, England
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby malcolmb » 26 Jun 2017, 20:16

Greybeard wrote:Clearly "party" politics is fraught with difficulty especially as it is as divisive as religion but a discussion about the role monarchy is not a party political issue but a constitutional issue.


Concur about "party politics". But are constitutional issues Druid issues? I think not. Separation of "Church" and State is at least to me a fundamental concept essential to democracy. What we do as citizens outside this forum is of course entirely up to us. But when we speak as Druids, I consider we have no role in debating constitutional issues. Of course it all depends upon what you see as the function of this Forum. Is it a Druid Forum for debating Druid issues? if so, then my view is that this thread should be deleted. If it is a place where OBOD members may discuss anything they like, then go ahead. All I would add is that this thread is in the Public section of this forum and is catalogued by search engines such as Google. The General Public will note the views of OBOD members (and especially senior members) and no doubt rightly or wrongly consider them the views of OBOD. Would our Chosen Chief be happy with this?
Peaceful Earth Grove: http://www.peacefulearthgrove.com/


My original "Druid Music" CDs (all proceeds to the charity "Pagan Aid":
https://lylemusic.bandcamp.com/

My original Celtic / Folk / Jazz music at:
http://www.soundclick.com/lylemusic
http://www.soundclick.com/malcolmbrown
http://www.youtube.com/user/LyleMusic

“So many Gods, so many creeds, so many paths that wind and wind. While just the art of being kind, is all the sad world needs.” Ella Wheeler Wilcox

User avatar
Greybeard
OBOD Druid
Posts: 52
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:14
Gender: Male
Location: The land of the Cantiaci
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby Greybeard » 27 Jun 2017, 06:45

malcolmb wrote: Is it a Druid Forum for debating Druid issues? if so, then my view is that this thread should be deleted. If it is a place where OBOD members may discuss anything they like, then go ahead.


I think we need a discussion about what Druid issues are then.

Do they extend to environmental issues? The fires in Portugal were mentioned on the forum a couple of days ago, yet the environment is intrinsically political.

How about the Grenfell fire?

The TDN's statement on the Finsbury Park attack? I think it would have been good if OBOD had put out a statement of solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters but is terrorism political? Yes.

Fracking?

What if a major political party tried to ban Druidry? Should we discuss it?

What should that boundary be?

malcolmb wrote: The General Public will note the views of OBOD members (and especially senior members) and no doubt rightly or wrongly consider them the views of OBOD. Would our Chosen Chief be happy with this?


If people think the view of members are the same as the views of OBOD then they need to be challenged. This can happen in most organisations yet the vast majority of people recognise the difference. For example there has been a problem with paedophile priests in the Church of England yet I can't hear people saying that the official view of the CofE is to abuse children. Similarly with Islamist extremists.

User avatar
malcolmb
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 467
Joined: 21 Jun 2008, 18:49
Gender: Male
Location: Isle of Wight, England
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby malcolmb » 27 Jun 2017, 12:00

Greybeard wrote:I think we need a discussion about what Druid issues are then.


Concur. And as you demonstrate with your examples, it is not a simple yes or no discussion. As I mentioned in a previous response to this thread, I would have no difficulty with Government decisions of "environmental issues" being discussed so long as it was the issue being discussed rather than any aspect of party politics. Of course the Environment is a very broad term. Does the term include Fracking. I would say yes.

The Grenfell fire and terrorism are more difficult issues. If we consider as Druids that all life is spiritual and sacred, then we must consider human life and its unnecessary loss a valid Druid issue. I am sure we would all express sympathy for loss of life by an earthquake, tsunami or famine. The same should surely be true for loss of life by fire, be it trees, animals, birds or humans. The loss of life through terrorism and war should also attract our sympathy. The difficulty comes in deciding how far into an issue it is right for a Druid to tread. Clearly there is a difference between natural causes and man-made causes. Where the cause is natural, as Druids we acknowledge the fragility of all life on our lovely Planet. There is nothing further to discuss. But with tower block fires and terrorism, there are man-made causes and people who are responsible. Should Druids take sides and point fingers? I think not. The test is whether Druidry itself as a spiritual belief is directly impacted by and involved in the issue and can it play a role in resolving it. When we present ourselves as Druids, we are simply part of our belief. Not individuals with axes to grind. Druidry has its foundation in the spirituality and sacredness of all life which makes it a valid issue. But Druidry has no role in debating tower block construction or preventing extremism in other beliefs. So we should express sympathy, deplore the needless loss of life and aid where we can the victims; but as Druids we should not involve ourselves in the politics and national debate in placing blame.

Greybeard wrote:What if a major political party tried to ban Druidry? Should we discuss it?


Yes. It directly threatens the continuance of our belief and is therefore a valid subject for Druidry as a whole. But we challenge the ban, not the party politics of the originator.

Greybeard wrote:
malcolmb wrote: The General Public will note the views of OBOD members (and especially senior members) and no doubt rightly or wrongly consider them the views of OBOD. Would our Chosen Chief be happy with this?


If people think the view of members are the same as the views of OBOD then they need to be challenged. This can happen in most organisations yet the vast majority of people recognise the difference. For example there has been a problem with paedophile priests in the Church of England yet I can't hear people saying that the official view of the CofE is to abuse children. Similarly with Islamist extremists.


Sadly, you do hear people taking isolated incidences of wrong doing and blaming the entire group that the wrong-doers belong to. "No smoke without fire" is a regular ploy used by the media and groups to whip up frenzy for their own purposes. I would like to think that "the vast majority of people recognise the difference". But the Brexit vote suggests otherwise. I do believe that a lot depends upon who makes statements. Senior members of organisations take great care over every word they say in the public arena. Purposeful and accidental misinterpretation of words said gives many leaders sleepless nights. "No comment" is often a wise choice. It is a simple fact that weight is given to words spoken by senior people and words spoken out of turn by junior people can be twisted to embarrass the senior. There have been many luckless junior Civil Servants whose career has been blighted by words spoken after a few beers!

Druidry is a young belief which has made huge strides in a very few years. But there is the old adage that those who put their heads above the parapet should not be surprised when they are shot at! If you think that no one is paying any attention to what is said in this Forum, then think again! I would never suggest that my views are necessarily right. Druidry will make its own decisions as to how it deals with political issues. I simply urge caution and careful thought. Off-hand, ill-considered comments have a habit of coming back and haunting you!
Peaceful Earth Grove: http://www.peacefulearthgrove.com/


My original "Druid Music" CDs (all proceeds to the charity "Pagan Aid":
https://lylemusic.bandcamp.com/

My original Celtic / Folk / Jazz music at:
http://www.soundclick.com/lylemusic
http://www.soundclick.com/malcolmbrown
http://www.youtube.com/user/LyleMusic

“So many Gods, so many creeds, so many paths that wind and wind. While just the art of being kind, is all the sad world needs.” Ella Wheeler Wilcox

User avatar
treegod
OBOD Druid
Posts: 2627
Joined: 26 Apr 2007, 16:28
Gender: Male
Location: Catalonia, Spain
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby treegod » 27 Jun 2017, 21:48

malcolmb wrote:Firstly I must wonder if Republic versus Monarchy is a suitable subject for a Druid Forum. Many will be aware that I do not believe that Druids have a role in politics. We are all citizens of our particular country and as such have a full right to express political views, assuming that your country permits it. Expressing those political views in a citizen related forum is your right. But here? I think not.

Funnily, I posted the same blog on another forum and it was taken off for being political. Personally, I find druidry (as I understand and practice it) to be something very much with the state of the world and political issues which connect with them. My spirituality is something that is directly relevant to my own life, but also to issues relating to society and the world.
I wasn't sure where to put it on the forum, so I decided the Hearthfire, and if a mod had a better idea, it could always be moved.

Secondly, UK is a Constitutional Monarchy. The word "Constitutional" is important. It means that the power of the monarch is restricted by Parliament, the Law and our unwritten constitution. As such the power of the monarch is extremely limited almost to the point of non-existence. Within a Republic, would the power of a President be similarly restricted? I very much doubt it. The primacy of Parliament and thereby the will of the people would be curtailed. While I appreciate there are counter-arguments, I think our current system has much to be applauded.

This is what the "slowly and incrementally" is about - ever since the Magna Carta, the British monarchy has slowly, very slowly, been phased out. I think it's inevitable that it will happen, not within my lifetime, and I'm not looking for it to happen any time soon. I think there's too much support for it in the general republic to make it easy or even desirable.
Of course, if I were to see the a republic replace the monarchy, I would much rather see a "ceremonial presidency" (not sure, but I think Ireland and Italy have this, possibly others - and I think Barbados wants a referendum on the matter). I wouldn't want to see a US-style president where head of state and head of government are conflated, but that the two roles are kept distinct within the system.

Thirdly, we have been exceptionally well served by our current Monarch. Her even-handed diplomacy, experience and advice have been valued not only by the many Prime Ministers during her reign but also by many leaders within the Commonwealth and elsewhere. I have no doubt that those who follow her as monarch will equally serve this country with distinction. I have serious reservations as to whether the same would be true of a President with political leanings.

I share your reservations about a president with political leanings. I don't think a republic is necessarily better than monarchy - and there are many examples around the world where it ain't so - but I think an elected head of state makes more sense in the context of a democracy than a hereditary one, there's more "internal coherence". But in practical political terms, I'm no sure if it would make much of a difference. The quality of a democracy is determined by the participation of the citizenry, not the shape of the system.

malcolmb wrote:I am an unashamed monarchist. I see no reason to change our current system which serves the country and its people well.

I see no urgent reason to change it either, but I think it will change, and as society becomes more genuinely democratic (and about this I have grave doubts too at present) the role and importance of the monarchy will recede. It doesn't need to be provoked and may just happen naturally.
Last edited by treegod on 27 Jun 2017, 22:29, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
treegod
OBOD Druid
Posts: 2627
Joined: 26 Apr 2007, 16:28
Gender: Male
Location: Catalonia, Spain
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby treegod » 27 Jun 2017, 22:23

Michael C. Page wrote:Good to see you posting again.

Thank you :)

While I do disagree with the over all blog for many reasons, I do understand your frustration.

I think I got over my frustration about it ages ago. It's not all that bad, has its pros and cons - I just know my stance is all. :)

Given the state of affairs of the two primary examples of "Republican" ( i.e. elected democratic ) government bodies such as the in USA and the House of Commons in the UK are you sure that you have chosen a correct solution to the problem?

No, not at all. Symbolically, it migth have the appearance of being more democratic, but appearances can be deceiving. ;)


As an American, I see the disadvantages of having ALL elected branches which are ALL dominated by party politics. I think you need a check and balance, not only between Branches and Parties, but between an electorate and appointed Branch as well.

Checks and balances are what it's all about for me - representative democracy, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism (both between regions and nations) - democracy in this form is less about the "will of the people" and more about neutralising political extremes and preventing anyone from having too much power for too long.

The House of Lords has four types of member: partisan peers appointed by UK govt, bishops from the Church of England, hereditary peers and "crossbenchers" (non-partisan professional and experts that lend their expertise). As a "republican" I'd like to see the hereditary peers removed, and as a secularist, the bishops should go, but I still see the point of the crossbenchers, which stop any party have a majority in the HoL and aren't interested in getting votes. I think also the devolved governments (Scotland, Wales and NI) should also be able to appoint their own peers instead of just the British one.
After last years referendum shambles, I can see that populism is the danger of representative democracy, and having an unelected house with partial party presence does offset that slightly.

With some simple reforms, the British people can make sure that you "Save your Politicians from themselves" by making sure that, when one House is insane, the other House can step in and stabilize the situation until the insanity ebbs. :) After all, people want sound Government.....not a bunch of grandstanding ego maniacs chasing wind and stirring up strife.

Before the abolition of the monarchy, I think other reforms should come first, those I mentioned above, have proportional representation for the House of Commons (but not the Lords) and have an actual written consitution, instead of a mixture of "law and custom". For the monarchy itself, a "normalising" of its image to bring it closer to the people would imo be the next step (à la Scandinavia) would smoothen the transition - it does seem to be happening, but slowly. We'll see what happens as the crown changes hands.

I'm sure many other reforms would have to be considered of course, but the potential for creating a system of check and balance is there already in the UK. :) It's not in my country (sadly). I do not see the USA changing the Senate both in Washington and varies States to an appointed body.....but if only the Senate was at least......well....Party Free....Oh well. :shrug:

There's plenty of problems in Britain, every system has their ups and downs - none of them perfect - I think we have to make the most of what we have and making changes where we can instead of making nothing out of what we don't have!

User avatar
malcolmb
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 467
Joined: 21 Jun 2008, 18:49
Gender: Male
Location: Isle of Wight, England
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby malcolmb » 29 Jun 2017, 16:19

treegod wrote: as society becomes more genuinely democratic (and about this I have grave doubts too at present) the role and importance of the monarchy will recede. It doesn't need to be provoked and may just happen naturally.


Hi treegod - very many thanks for your response to my comments. Clearly we are in different 'camps' when it comes to the monarchy but the 'wonder' of Druidry is that it welcomes a wide range of paths and who is to say those who walk those paths will agree on everything!

The monarchy is a difficult issue. I do believe it has served this country well and will continue to do so. You may well be right that it's importance will recede over time. But currently It seems to me that it is the will of the people that is receding in importance. And that is really worrying!
Peaceful Earth Grove: http://www.peacefulearthgrove.com/


My original "Druid Music" CDs (all proceeds to the charity "Pagan Aid":
https://lylemusic.bandcamp.com/

My original Celtic / Folk / Jazz music at:
http://www.soundclick.com/lylemusic
http://www.soundclick.com/malcolmbrown
http://www.youtube.com/user/LyleMusic

“So many Gods, so many creeds, so many paths that wind and wind. While just the art of being kind, is all the sad world needs.” Ella Wheeler Wilcox

User avatar
Whitemane
OBOD Bard
Posts: 2026
Joined: 19 Jan 2012, 21:21
Gender: Male
Location: Columbus, OH, USA
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby Whitemane » 30 Jun 2017, 14:44

The sine qua non of an effective democracy is an informed and engaged electorate. The electorate need to be willing to take the time to research and understand the issues affecting them and how those who seek power will act on these issues and how it will affect them. Once we let populism over the threshold we start saying that it's OK that you don't think about the issues too much and just go with your visceral responses. Depending upon your point of view, that started 40-60 years ago and we are seeing the end point of the movement now. Lacking the tools, temperament and inclination to filter out the hype and the nonsense, you get a President like the one we have, with a party that has jettisoned a political and ethical backbone for the pursuit of power, followed by abuse. Everybody is yelling and nobody is listening.

This is not what Republicanism is about. It is about letting the people decide, but it is also about educating them, and treating them responsibly and with respect. That means that if they reject your ideas, they stay rejected. You don't paint a moustache on it and try and sell it again. You accept the decision and move on. It's also expensive, because it's about social values, not profit margins. The demented bookkeeper philosophy that has enthralled certain parties over the years fails to truly serve most of the electorate. If you want a healthy republic, it will exact heavy financial and social costs, but it will be worth it.
May the long time sun shine upon you,
All love surround you,
And the pure light within you,
Guide your way on.

User avatar
Sciethe
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 560
Joined: 03 Oct 2012, 22:34
Gender: Male
Location: Berkshire UK
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby Sciethe » 15 Jul 2017, 00:46

Thank you Treegod, Malcolmb, Whitemane, Greybeard, Michael.

Well you know what. The current political debates have been divisive over the past year to the point where I've simply withdrawn from almost all forums. Your pardon for that, perhaps I should have been "stronger". This discussion however is really quite sane and is what I would expect and hope for from the Druid world. I've not been seeing enough of that recently.

To answer Greybeard's question about discussing issues and politics, I *personally* think that the role of the Druid is to observe, discuss, analyse and inform. I do not think that it is our role to be party politically partisan. I believe that it IS our role to look at specific issues in politics apolitically and to act or even campaign accordingly- but not to buy the stuff by the job lot bundle as handed out from party central. The reason is that the party lens is a distorting and ideological one, and I'm seeing too many otherwise good people being drawn into false positions which have been dividing and diverting our community, making our clearly legitimate goals such as the defence of the Earth more difficult to achieve. We choose a side, and the loser is the environment. For example.

In many ways it doesn't matter which party rules as long as we hit the ruling institution hard in the flank as a broadly united body on individual matters we all care about. When we do that we can and do achieve positive change, and show the world what we truly can be at our best.

I have been told that I have to vote a particular way or I am not a true Druid. Frankly... well I can't be frank about what I think of that. That's one of the reasons I closed down quite a bit.

And I like what has been said about the monarchy. This debate here is very good, I particularly like Malcolmb's position and Treegod's too. It would be great if we grew to a point where they were not needed. Idealistic though, would we ever develop that far? But for myself, I feel the need for monarchy and it's stabilizing influence at present. Especially at present. These two positions flow together in my mind. And are satisfying. All things strive.
Blessings :shake:
Sciethe
For in his morning orisons he loves the sun and the sun loves him. For he is of the tribe of Tiger. Christopher Smart

User avatar
shirley mclaren
OBOD Ovate
Posts: 1494
Joined: 11 Jan 2006, 16:48
Gender: Female
Location: Surrey UK
Contact:

Re: Slowly and Incrementally Down with the Monarchy! (a blog)

Postby shirley mclaren » 15 Jul 2017, 06:45

While I respect the views already given, I do not think the druid forum is an appropriate place for this discussion.
Try to live each day as if it were your last


Return to “The Hearthfire”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests